This category needs an editor. We encourage you to help if you are qualified.
Volunteer, or read more about what this involves.
Related categories
Subcategories:
97 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Order:
1 — 50 / 97
Material to categorize
  1. Alexander Aichele (2012). I Think Something That You Do Not Think, and That is Red. John Locke and George Berkeley Over Abstract Ideas and Kant's Logical Abstractionism. Kant-Studien 103 (1).
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  2. Margaret Atherton (1987). Berkeley's Anti-Abstractionism. In Ernest Sosa (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley. D. Reidel
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  3. R. Attfield (1970). Berkeley and Imagination. Philosophy 45 (173):237 - 239.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (7 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  4. Michael R. Ayers (2007). Berkeley, Ideas, and Idealism. In Stephen H. Daniel (ed.), Reexamining Berkeley's Philosophy.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  5. Teppei Baba (2008). Is Berkeley's Theory of Ideas A Variant of Locke's? Proceedings of the Xxii World Congress of Philosophy 16:9-15.
    I try to show that Berkeley's theory of ideas is not a variant of Locke's. We can find such an interpretation of Berkeley in Thomas Reid. So, we could call this interpretation a 'traditional interpretation'. This traditional interpretation has an influence still now, for example, Tomida interprets Berkeley in this line (Tomida2002). We will see that this traditional interpretation gives a serious problem to Berkeley (section 1). And I am going to present an argument against this traditional interpretation (section 2).
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  6. Kenneth Barber (1971). Gruner on Berkeley on General Ideas. Dialogue 10 (2):337-341.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  7. Monroe C. Beardsley (1943). Berkeley on "Abstract Ideas". Mind 52 (206):157-170.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  8. Hans Peter Benschop (1997). Berkeley, Lee and Abstract Ideas. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 5 (1):55 – 66.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  9. Martha Brandt Bolton (2008). Berkeley and Mental Representation : Why Not a Lockean Theory of Ideas? In Stephen H. Daniel (ed.), New Interpretations of Berkeley's Thought. Humanity Books
  10. Martha Brandt Bolton (1987). Berkeley's Objection to Abstract Ideas and Unconceived Objects. In Ernest Sosa (ed.), Essays on the Philosophy of George Berkeley. D. Reidel
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  11. David Braybrooke (1955). Berkeley on the Numerical Identity of Ideas. Philosophical Review 64 (4):631-636.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  12. Richard Brook, Berkeley and the Causality of Ideas; a Look at PHK 25.
    I argue that Berkeley's distinctive idealism/immaterialism can't support his view that objects of sense, immediately or mediately perceived, are causally inert. (The Passivity of Ideas thesis or PI) Neither appeal to ordinary perception, nor traditional arguments, for example, that causal connections are necessary, and we can't perceive such connections, are helpful. More likely it is theological concerns,e.g., how to have second causes if God upholds by continuously creating the world, that's in the background. This puts Berkeley closer to Malebranche than (...)
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  13. Richard Brook (2005). Berkeley, Bundles, and Immediate Perception. Dialogue 44 (3):493-504.
    I argue in this article that, contrary to some recent views, Berkeley’s bundle theory of physical objects is incompatible with the thinking that we immediately perceive such objects. Those who argue the contrary view rightly stress that immediate perception of ideas or objects must be non-conceptual for Berkeley, that is, the concept of the object cannot be made use of in the perception, otherwise it would be mediate perception. After a brief look at the texts, I contrast how a direct (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  14. John Campbell (2002). Berkeley's Puzzle. In Tamar S. Gendler & John Hawthorne (eds.), Conceivability and Possibility. MIT Press
    But say you,surely there is nothing easier than to imagine trees,for instance,in a park, or books existing in a closet, and nobody by to perceive them. I answer, you may so, there is no dif?culty in it:but what is all this,I beseech you,more than framing in your mind certain ideas which you call books and trees, and at the same time omitting to frame the idea of anyone that may perceive them? But do you not yourself perceive or think of (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   12 citations  
  15. John Carriero (2003). Berkeley, Resemblance, and Sensible Things. Philosophical Topics 31 (1/2):21-46.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  16. Ewing Y. Chinn (1994). The Anti-Abstractionism of Dignāga and Berkeley. Philosophy East and West 44 (1):55-77.
  17. David Lee Clemenson (2001). Species, Ideas and Idealism: The Scholastic and Cartesian Background of Berkeley's Master Argument. Dissertation, Rice University
    This dissertation situates Berkeley's "master argument" for idealism in the context of Descartes' theory of ideas, and seeks to show that within that context the argument is convincing. In addition, the dissertation argues that Descartes' theory of ideas was not representationalist., as is often supposed, but a kind of direct realism; Cartesian ideas render intelligible individuals directly present to the intellect. In this respect Cartesian idea theory is very similar to a theory of species expounded by Antonio Rubio and other (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  18. Theodore Michael Daniel Cooke (1998). Berkeley: Perception, Conception, and Indexical Thought. Dissertation, Marquette University
    The doctrine of matter, mind/body interaction, the primary/secondary quality distinction, the doctrine of absolute time: these are just some of the tenets of early modern philosophy that are vigorously attacked by George Berkeley , the Anglo-Irish bishop and philosopher who offered his own theory of immaterialism to replace the problematic dualistic philosophies of his day. In this study it is argued that Berkeley's rejection of abstract ideas underscores his strongest attacks on all of these tenets. The first five chapters give (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  19. E. J. Craig (1968). Berkeley's Attack on Abstract Ideas. Philosophical Review 77 (4):425-437.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  20. Philip Damien Cummins (1966). Berkeley's Likeness Principle. Journal of the History of Philosophy 4 (1):63-69.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  21. Phillip D. Cummins (1975). Berkeley's Ideas of Sense. Noûs 9 (1):55-72.
  22. Georges Dicker (2001). Berkeley on the Impossibility of Abstracting Primary From Secondary Qualities: Lockean Rejoinders. Southern Journal of Philosophy 39 (1):23-45.
  23. Willis Doney (ed.) (1989). Berkeley on Abstraction and Abstract Ideas. Garland.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  24. Willis Doney (1983). Berkeley's Argument Against Abstract Ideas. Midwest Studies in Philosophy 8 (1):295-308.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  25. David William Drebushenko (1987). Abstraction and the 'Esse' is 'Percipi' Thesis. Dissertation, The Ohio State University
    The dissertation is divided into two parts. In Part One, Locke's theory of abstract general ideas is introduced and it is explained how it is to be used in giving an account of how certain common nouns refer. In the second chapter, Berkeley's attack on the theory of abstract ideas is described. In the third chapter, a defense of the doctrine proposed by J. L. Mackie is considered. It is argued that this fails as it stands, but the chapter goes (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  26. François Duchesneau (1987). An Similes Apud Deum Et Percipientem Ideae Dici Possint (Commentaire de David Raynor, “Berkeley's Ontology”). Dialogue 26 (04):621-.
  27. Lorne Falkenstein (1991). Book Review:Particles and Ideas: Bishop Berkeley's Corpuscularian Philosophy Gabriel Moked. [REVIEW] Philosophy of Science 58 (1):133-.
  28. Daniel E. Flage (1986). Berkeley on Abstraction. Journal of the History of Philosophy 24 (4):483-501.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  29. Melissa Frankel (2012). Berkeley: Ideas, Immaterialism, and Objective Presence. [REVIEW] Berkeley Studies 23:46-50.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  30. Melissa Frankel (2009). Something-We-Know-Not-What, Something-We-Know-Not-Why: Berkeley, Meaning and Minds. Philosophia 37 (3):381-402.
    It is sometimes suggested that Berkeley adheres to an empirical criterion of meaning, on which a term is meaningful just in case it signifies an idea (i.e., an immediate object of perceptual experience). This criterion is thought to underlie his rejection of the term ‘matter’ as meaningless. As is well known, Berkeley thinks that it is impossible to perceive matter. If one cannot perceive matter, then, per Berkeley, one can have no idea of it; if one can have no idea (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  31. Bruce Allen Freeberg (1999). The Problem of Divine Ideas in Eighteenth-Century Immaterialism: A Comparative Study of the Philosophies of George Berkeley, Samuel Johnson, Arthur Collier, and Jonathan Edwards. Dissertation, Emory University
    Immaterialism is typically associated with George Berkeley, but Berkeley's philosophy is one of four distinct versions of immaterialism that developed in the early eighteenth century. To the extent that attention has been given to the lesser known proponents of immaterialism, the basic differences in their views have not been adequately explicated and appreciated. I show that one of the most important differences between the several proponents of immaterialism is found in their different approaches to the problem of divine ideas, the (...)
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  32. S. A. Grave (1964). The Mind and its Ideas: Some Problems in the Interpretation of Berkeley. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 42 (2):199 – 210.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  33. J. C. Gregory (1942). On A. A. Luce's Berkeley's Existence in the Mind. Mind 51:198.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (6 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  34. Rolf Gruner (1969). Berkeley on General Ideas. Dialogue 8 (3):481-485.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (2 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  35. Martial Gueroult (1953). Perception, idée, objet, chose chez G. Berkeley. Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 143:181 - 200.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
      Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  36. Ingemar Hedenius (1936). Sensationalism and Theology in Berkeley's Philosophy. Uppsala, Almqvist & Wiksells Boktryckeri-A.-B.
  37. Jonathan Hill (2011). Berkeley's Missing Argument: The Sceptical Attack on Intentionality. British Journal for the History of Philosophy 19 (1):47-77.
    Berkeley argues that our ideas cannot represent external objects, because only an idea can resemble an idea. But he does not offer any argument for the claim that an idea can represent only what it resembles - a premise essential to his argument. I argue that this gap can be both historically explained and filled by examining the debates between Cartesians and sceptics in the late seventeenth century. Descartes held that representation involves two relations between an idea and its object (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  38. Robert Anderson Imlay (1971). Berkeley on Abstract General Ideas. Journal of the History of Philosophy 9 (3):321-328.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  39. Michael Jacovides (2009). How Berkeley Corrupted His Capacity to Conceive. Philosophia 37 (3):415-429.
    Berkeley’s capacity to conceive of mind-independent bodies was corrupted by his theory of representation. He thought that representation of things outside the mind depended on resemblance. Since ideas can resemble nothing than ideas, and all ideas are mind dependent, he concluded that we couldn’t form ideas of mind-independent bodies. More generally, he thought that we had no inner resembling proxies for mind-independent bodies, and so we couldn’t even form a notion of such things. Because conception is a suggestible faculty, Berkeley’s (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (5 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   1 citation  
  40. Michael Jacovides (2009). Remarks on Smalligan Marusic's Comments. Philosophia 37 (3):437-439.
    The author defends attributing to Berkeley the thesis that we can't conceive of extension in a mind-independent body against criticism from Smalligan Marusic. The author also specifies the resemblance requirements that Berkeley places on conceivability, concedes that the principle that ideas can only be like other ideas is not, strictly speaking, a premise in the Master Argument, and clarifies his views on the relation between possibility and conceivability.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  41. Nicholas Jolley (1996). Berkeley, Malebranche, and Vision in God. Journal of the History of Philosophy 34 (4):535-548.
    Berkeley, Malebranche, and Vision in God NICHOLAS JOLLEY IN THE SECOND of the Three Dialogues Hylas, the materialist, asks Philonous: "But what say you, are not you too of opinion that we see all things in God? If I mistake not, what you advance comes near it."' In the first edition of the Dialogues Philonous's response was a temperate one; he expressed his agree- ment with Malebranche's emphasis on the Scriptural text that in God we live, move, and have our (...)
    Remove from this list   Direct download (3 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography   2 citations  
  42. A. Kasem (1989). Can Berkeley Be Called an Imagist? Indian Philosophical Quarterly 16 (1):75.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  43. John Kilcullen, Week 12: Medieval Elements in Berkeley, Locke and Hume.
    This is cassette 12, concerned with more connexions between late medieval and early modern thought. The first writer we will look at is George Berkeley, who criticised Locke's theory of abstract ideas and put forward his own theory of universality.
    Remove from this list   Direct download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  44. Jerzy Kopania (1990). Semiotyka sensualizmu immanentnego. Idea, pojęcie i słowo w filozofii Berkeley\'a'. Idea 3 (3):45-68.
    Remove from this list  
    Translate
     
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  45. Craig Lehman (1981). Will, Ideas, and Perception in Berkeley's God. Southern Journal of Philosophy 19 (2):197-203.
  46. Thomas M. Lennon (2001). Berkeley on the Act-Object Distinction. Dialogue 40 (04):651-.
  47. Dominique Berlioz Letellier (1986). "To stand for " et "to represent" dans l'introduction manuscrite de Berkeley. Revue Philosophique de la France Et de l'Etranger 3:331-338.
  48. A. A. Luce (1941). Berkeley's Existence in the Mind. Mind 50 (199):258-267.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (8 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  49. Joseph Margolis (1982). Berkeley and Others on the Problem of Universals. In Colin M. Turbayne (ed.), Berkeley: Critical and Interpretive Essays.
    Remove from this list  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
  50. Jennifer Smalligan Marusic (2009). Comments on Michael Jacovides “How Berkeley Corrupted His Capacity to Conceive”. Philosophia 37 (3):431-436.
    The manuscript includes comments on Michael Jacovides’s paper, “How Berkeley Corrupted His Capacity to Conceive.” The paper and comments were delivered at the conference “Meaning and Modern Empiricism” held at Virginia Tech in April 2008. I consider Jacovides’s treatment of Berkeley’s Resemblance Argument and his interpretation of the Master Argument. In particular, I distinguish several ways of understanding the disagreement between Jacovides and Kenneth Winkler over the right way to read the Master Argument.
    Remove from this list   Direct download (4 more)  
     
    Export citation  
     
    My bibliography  
1 — 50 / 97